Introduction                                   Related Work                                   Our Proposal                ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                     Related Work                                     Our Proposal            ...
Introduction                                     Related Work                                     Our Proposal            ...
Introduction                                      Related Work                                      Our Proposal          ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                      Related Work                                      Our Proposal          ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                     Related Work                                     Our Proposal            ...
Introduction                                    Related Work                                    Our Proposal              ...
Introduction                                     Related Work                                     Our Proposal            ...
Introduction                                     Related Work                                     Our Proposal            ...
Introduction                               Related Work                               Our Proposal                     Dem...
Introduction                                      Related Work                                      Our Proposal          ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

An Open and Inspectable Learner Modeling with a Negotiation Mechanism to Solve Cognitive Conflicts in an Intelligent Tutoring System

384 views

Published on

Some researchers have developed relevant and diverse proposals for improving the content quality of the learner model in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, mainly reducing its uncertainty. Following
this aim, this paper proposes an open learner modeling approach using
Bayesian networks, focusing on negotiation mechanism to solve detected
cognitive conflicts that can emerge when the learner inspects information
of his model inferred by the system. Therefore, we addressed some issues
concerning the provision of inspectable model and negotiated updating
of this model. Its contribution lies in the fact that the learners attempt
to change the learner model is met with a challenge, leading to a decision
if the learner claims to know more (or less) than the model represents.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
384
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

An Open and Inspectable Learner Modeling with a Negotiation Mechanism to Solve Cognitive Conflicts in an Intelligent Tutoring System

  1. 1. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesAn Open and Inspectable Learner Modeling with aNegotiation Mechanism to Solve Cognitive Conflicts in an Intelligent Tutoring System Evandro Costa, Priscylla Silva, Jonathas Magalh˜es and Marlos Silva a TIPS Group Computing Institute Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil Federal University of Campina Grande, Brazil E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 1
  2. 2. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesResearch Context Learner modeling tasks in ITS; High level of uncertainty; Probabilistic Learner Modeling in ITS; Opening and Viewing Learner Model; Presence of Cognitive Conflicts; Mechanisms for dealing with conflicts; Negotiating the open learner model. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 2
  3. 3. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesResearch Questions Q1 : What approach should we adopt to deal with uncertainty found in a learner model for ITS? Q2 : What is an appropriate way to define and viewing OLM? Q3 : How can we detect cognitive conflicts between the student and the system concerning problem solving activities? Q4 : How can we effectively address these conflicts? E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 3
  4. 4. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesHow those Questions have been addressed?With respect to Q1 – Representation and Maintenance: Conati et al. [2]; E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 4
  5. 5. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesHow those Questions have been addressed?With respect to Q2 – OLM and Visualization: Zapata and Greer [5]; E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 5
  6. 6. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesHow those Questions have been addressed?With respect to Q3 and Q4 – Conflicts detection and Negotiation: Bull et al. [1]; Dimitrova [3]; Thomson and Mitrovic [4]. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 6
  7. 7. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesOur General Approach E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 7
  8. 8. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesThe Open Learner Model E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 8
  9. 9. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesThe Open Learner Model 1 4 The system put a problem to the learner: 3 + 3; He declares his belief: Very unsure = 0.05; Unsure = 0.25; Almost sure = 0.5; Sure = 0.75; Very sure = 0.95. Then, he submits a solution and the system evaluate it and returns a grade [0,1]. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 9
  10. 10. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesThe Open Learner Model (a) The Ms . (b) The Mt . Figure: Task-specific part of the Learner Model. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 10
  11. 11. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesThe Open Learner Model (a) The Ms . (b) The Mt . Figure: Domain-general part of the Learner Model. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 11
  12. 12. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesThe Open Learner Model Figure: The Visualization of the Learner Model. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 12
  13. 13. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesNegotiation ProcessThe negotiation mechanism depends on the learner’s credibility: Figure: The DBN of the learner’s credibility. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 13
  14. 14. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesNegotiation Process When the learner wants to change the tutor’s belief Credibility L’s belief < T’s belief L’s Belief > T’s belief Low Persuasion Persuasion Medium Persuasion Cooperation High Persuasion Cooperation When the tutor wants to change the student’s belief Credibility L’s belief < T’s belief L’s belief > T’s belief Low Support Contestation Medium Support Contestation High Support Contestation E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 14
  15. 15. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesProve Process During the negotiation: The system can request that the learner proves his knowledge, or; The learner can request the opportunity of prove. The proof process consists of: Two problems and the learner has two chances to solve each problem; Then, his model is updated. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 15
  16. 16. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesDemonstration Scenario Figure: Example of Negotiation Dialogue Started by the Learner. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 16
  17. 17. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesWe are we going next? Improve the visualization, allowing the visualization of the two parts of the model; Put other evidences in the learner model: social characteristics, CV-curriculum of the student, collaborative information; Perform an experiment in a basic math classroom. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 17
  18. 18. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesReferences Susan Bull, Paul Brna, and Helen Pain. Extending the scope of the student model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5(1):45–65, 1995. Cristina Conati, Abigail Gertner, and Kurt Vanlehn. Using bayesian networks to manage uncertainty in student modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(4):371–417, 2002. Vania Dimitrova. Style-olm: Interactive open learner modelling. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13(1):35–78, January 2003. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 18
  19. 19. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesReferˆncias e David Thomson and Antonija Mitrovic. Preliminary evaluation of a negotiable student model in a constraint-based its. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(1):19–33, 2010. Juan-Diego Zapata-Rivera and Jim E. Greer. Interacting with inspectable bayesian student models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(2):127–163, 2004. E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 19
  20. 20. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations References Thanks!!E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 20
  21. 21. Introduction Related Work Our Proposal Demonstration Scenario Final Considerations ReferencesFor more information: http://tip.ic.ufal.br/site/ E. Costa, P. Silva, J. Magalh˜es and M. Silva a PALE UMAP 2012 21

×